Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

1) This is example 5 (page 177 of Dugundji's book). Every subspace of the Sorgenfrey line is separable yet it is not second countable. I know how to prove it is not second countable. My question is: why is every subspace of the Sorgenfrey line separable? the Sorgenfrey line is separable but not metrizable, so I don't see why this follows immediately.

2) Is $\mathbb{R}^{\omega}$ a Lindelöf space? (here $\omega$ means the natural numbers). Can we simply say that $\mathbb{R}^{\omega}$ is metrizable being the countable product of a metrizable space, $\mathbb{R}$, and also separable since the countable product of separable spaces is separable so we have a separable and metrizable space, thus Lindelöf. What is another way of seeing this?

Now just for fun, what if we consider $\mathbb{R}^{\mathbb{R}}$. Is this Lindelöf?

share|cite|improve this question
The first question seems to be answered here:… – Martin Sleziak Jul 8 '11 at 6:21
@Martin Sleziak: thanks, just found this too. Unfortunately I don't see how to characterize the points he says, I don't understand his argument. – user10 Jul 8 '11 at 6:23
@user10: To your fun question: It is not. Fact: If $J$ is uncountable, then $\mathbb R^J$ is regular, but not normal. Now Lindelöf + regular $\implies$ normal, hence $\mathbb R^J$ can't be Lindelöf for such $J$. – Sam Jul 8 '11 at 8:00
up vote 3 down vote accepted

(1) Let $X \subseteq \mathbb R$. Let $\mathcal S$ be the subspace topology that $X$ inherits as a subspace of the Sorgenfrey line, and let $\mathcal E$ be the topology that $X$ inherits from $E^1$, the reals with the Euclidean topology. You know that $\langle X, \mathcal E \rangle$ is separable, so there is a countable $D_0 \subseteq X$ that is $\mathcal E$-dense in $X$. This $D_0$ is almost $\mathcal S$-dense in $X$ as well.

To see this, let $V = (x,y] \cap X$ (where $x,y \in \mathbb R$ with $x<y$ ) be a non-empty basic open set in $\langle X, \mathcal S \rangle$. Then either $(x,y) \cap X \ne \emptyset$, or $V = \{y\}$. $(x,y) \cap X \in \mathcal E$ - it's open in the Euclidean topology - so if it's non-empty, it contains a point of $D_0$, and therefore so does $V$. We only have a problem in the second case, when $V = \{y\}$. Clearly such a point $y$ is an isolated point in $X$, so it must belong to any dense subset of $X$. Let $D = D_0 \cup \{y \in X:y \text{ is an isolated point in }X\}$. It should be clear that $D$ is dense in $\langle X, \mathcal S \rangle$, so the only question is whether it's countable. This will be the case provided that $E = \{y \in X:y \text{ is an isolated point in }X\}$ is countable.

For each $y \in E$ there must be a real number $x_y<y$ such that $(x_y,y] \cap X = \{y\}$. Consider the intervals $(x_y,y]$ in $\mathbb R$; clearly they must be pairwise disjoint (otherwise one would contain at least two points of $X$), so each must contain a different rational number. There are only countably many rationals, so there are at most countably many intervals $(x_y,y]$ with $y \in E$, $E$ is therefore at most countable, and $D$ is a countable $\mathcal S$-dense subset of $X$.

(2) Yes, the argument that you suggest works. You can also use Theorems VIII.6.2(3) and VIII.6.3 to see that $\mathbb R^\omega$ is second countable and therefore Lindelöf. I'll have to think a bit about your last question.

Edit: Sam's already answered the question and given a reason. If you're interested in the details, which are a bit messy, look at Theorem 3 in this paper by A.H. Stone. If you take his uncountable set $\Lambda$ to be $\mathbb R$, the space $T$ in that theorem is $(\mathbb Z^+)^\mathbb R$, and it's easy to check that it's a closed subspace of $\mathbb R^\mathbb R$. Since normality is inherited by closed subspaces, non-normality of $T$ implies non-normality of $\mathbb R^\mathbb R$.

share|cite|improve this answer
Last question: Sam gave an argument in a comment above. – t.b. Jul 8 '11 at 9:01
@Theo: I was hoping to find an argument for which I could give the details without getting too technical; the proof that $\omega^{\omega_1}$ is not normal is bit rugged for someone working through Dugundji. – Brian M. Scott Jul 8 '11 at 9:34
@Sam: What about the $x$ s.t. $x_j=1$, $x_\alpha=0$ for $\alpha\in J\setminus \{j\}$? Either I'm still asleep, or $x\in X\setminus \bigcup_{\alpha\in J\setminus \{j\}}B_\alpha$. – Brian M. Scott Jul 8 '11 at 20:58
@Brian: You are of course right. It seems to me, I was already asleep. – Sam Jul 9 '11 at 0:04
I initially was hoping I could exhibit more creativity than this, but one can just adapt Stone's idea: If $J$ is uncountable, we can consider the closed subspace $\mathbb Z ^J \subset \mathbb R^J$, and in this space once more the closed subspace $X = \{x \text{ is injective on }\mathbb Z^J\setminus x^{-1}(0) \}$. Now the collection $B_\alpha = \{x(\alpha) = 0\}$ is an open covering of $X$ and has no countable subcover - for we can find an injection $x: J_0 \to \mathbb Z$ into the integers minus the origin for any countable index set $J_0 \subset J$ (and map $J\setminus J_0$ into $\{0\}$). – Sam Jul 9 '11 at 0:34

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.